Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04

    • br Methods br Results Bivariate tests of immigrant

    2018-10-24


    Methods
    Results Bivariate tests of immigrant concern scores between whites and non-whites are presented in Table 2. Across all three national surveys, the mean level of immigration concern is significantly higher among whites than among non-whites. Average immigration concern for whites on the GSS was 3.7 compared to 3.3 for non-whites (p<0.001, two-tailed), 3.0 for whites on the ANES compared to 2.8 for non-whites (p<0.001, two-tailed), and 3.2 for whites on the PALS compared to 2.7 for non-whites (p<0.001, two-tailed). Table 3 presents ever smoking odds ratios from the multivariate regression models. Odds of ever smoking were higher among whites compared to non-whites, adjusting for covariates (see first column across all three surveys): GSS (OR=1.63 CI=1.21, 2.19), ANES (OR=1.40 CI=1.24, 1.58), PALS (OR=2.32 CI=1.95, 2.78). The unadjusted odds ratios were: GSS (OR=1.39 CI=1.06, 1.82), ANES (OR=1.28 CI=1.15, 1.43), PALS (OR=2.19 CI=1.86, 2.57). These results align with research indicating white/non-white differences in smoking prevalence using other national data (Jamal et al., 2014; Kandel et al., 2004; Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, 2014; Trinidad et al., 2011). Across all three surveys, likelihood ratio tests indicated that GSK126 adding the immigration concern mediator produced significantly better fitting models. Higher levels of immigration concern were associated with higher odds of smoking (see second column across all surveys): GSS (OR=1.15 CI=1.02, 1.30), ANES (OR=1.16 CI=1.08, 1.24), PALS (OR=1.13 CI=1.06, 1.20). These associations were significant even adjusting for covariates. Also, immigration concern partially mediated white respondents’ higher odds of smoking (comparing first and second columns for each survey). This observed mediation was confirmed using the KHB method; the mediation effect was statistically significant (two-tailed) across each survey: GSS (p<0.05), ANES (p<0.001), and PALS (p<0.001). Table 4 presents results from the multivariate regression models for current smoking status. The results largely confirm the findings from ever smoking. Odds of being a current daily smoker were higher among whites compared to non-whites: GSS (OR=1.73 CI=1.19, 2.54), ANES (OR=1.67 CI=1.38, 2.02), PALS (OR=2.32 CI=1.87, 2.89). As with ever smoking, adding the mediator produced significantly better fitting models across all surveys, and higher levels of immigration concern were associated with higher odds of current smoking: GSS (OR= 1.27 CI=1.07, 1.49), ANES (OR=1.41 CI=1.27, 1.57), PALS (OR=1.16 CI=1.07, 1.24). Immigration concern mediated white respondents’ higher odds of current smoking as tested using the KHB method (two-tailed): GSS (p<0.01), ANES (p<0.001), and PALS (p<0.001). The ANES data did contain a partial measure of affect towards immigrants; however, the affect target was “illegal immigrants,” not immigrants more generally. The affect measure consisted of a feeling thermometer, which was reverse-coded for this study to indicate negative or “cold” feelings at the maximum value of the range (0–100). After mean imputing missing values to recover 52 out of 3667 cases, the measure of negative affect towards illegal immigrants was included in the mediated model for current smoking (Table 4, ANES data, Column 2). The negative affect measure was related to higher odds of current smoking (OR=1.01 CI=1.005, 1.013) for each “degree” increase on the thermometer. Moreover, inclusion of the negative affect measure further reduced the higher odds of smoking among whites (from OR=1.52 CI=1.25, 1.84 to OR=1.29 CI=1.05, 1.58) and also reduced the higher odds of smoking attributed to immigration concern (from OR=1.41 CI=1.27, 1.57 to OR=1.27 CI=1.13, 1.43). A KHB test confirmed that both were significant reductions in effect size (p<0.001), denoting the mediating role of negative affect towards illegal immigrants.
    Discussion Concern about immigration partially mediated the smoking difference between whites and non-whites across all three national surveys. This main finding identifies immigration concern as a smoking risk factor among whites, as all three national surveys are cross-sectional and cannot assess causality. Theoretically, the group position framework with its focus on perceived group competition proposes two dimensions that may account for the association between smoking and immigration concern among whites: economic vulnerability and negative affect. The models did control for factors linked to economic vulnerability, such as education, income, unemployed status, and recent economic vulnerability. There may yet be other omitted variables tied to economic vulnerability, such as feelings of low control that could still account for the residual association. Negative affect towards immigrants was also in play, as indicated by the feeling thermometer for illegal immigrants. One possible omitted factor that should be tested is subjective social status (Siahpush, Borland, Taylor, Singh, Ansari & Serraglio, 2006; Wolff, Acevedo-Garcia, Subramanian, Weber & Kawachi, 2010).